Both NASA Watch and Space News are reporting this evening that a new and relatively unknown (in the space community) choice for NASA administrator has emerged: retired Air Force major general J. Scott Gration. (The Space News report is more certain, saying that Gration has been asked to take the job, and could be formally nominated as early as Wednesday.) As you can see from his Air Force biography, the former fighter pilot has virtually no obvious space experience, the exception being his stint as a White House Fellow, where he worked for NASA deputy administrator Hans Mark, but that was over a quarter-century ago (1982-1983). It’s safe to say he didn’t show up on most people’s shortlists to become administrator prior to tonight.
Gration, who retired from the Air Force in 2006, does have one key attribute: a close relationship with the incoming president. Gration was an early supporter of Obama and became a key military policy advisor during the campaign: according to a 2007 Newsweek article Gration accompanied Obama on a 2006 tour of Africa (Gration is the son of missionaries in the Congo, and is fluent in Swahili) and was apparently quickly won over by Obama. If Gration is indeed the selection, is will likely trigger a debate regarding whether it’s better to have someone with good White House connections but little/no space background running NASA versus someone with a much more space experience but weaker ties to the administration.
Trivia: if the announcement does come Wednesday, it will be made five years to the day after President Bush made his speech at NASA Headquarters unveiling the Vision for Space Exploration. Coincidence?
One other development: the Washington Blade reports that David Noble will be the “White House’s liaison” to NASA, according to a “prominent Democratic activist”. Noble joined the Obama campaign in June, leading efforts to mobilize gay voters. His background doesn’t indicate any space policy experience.
The fact that Pete Worden of Ames send out this tweet – his first one in 10 months – could also serve as a confirmation of the story.
I am not buying it yet. Space.com claims and unnamed source and kcowing over at NASA Watch claims unnamed source. So who is claiming from whom? We have been hearing one name after another slip out from unnamed sources. Charles Bolden was never even contacted. Charles Kennel was only consulted with as to possible nominees. I have difficulty believing someone with no NASA experience or space-related expertise would be a serious choice for NASA Administrator at this point. Sean O’Keefe has been head of OMB and was brought in to manage NASA cost overruns. Difficult to believe Lori Garver, head of NASA transition team, would reccomend person with close military ties.
I have also heard confirmations from several very reliable sources. It’s now coming through NASA management channels. This is similar to the dissemination of information about other announcements. We’re being told that the announcement will come today.
MSNBC is has publish the story but it cites the Space.com story as the source. No other news website has put the story out since Space.com and NASA Watch. A person MSNBC talked to within transition team says that Gration was a contender, but was unaware if he was offered the job. I am surprised and skeptical if Gration is Obama’s choice. When Eisenhower and Congress established NASA, Ike was very specific about NASA being civilian agency under civilian control. I am uncomfortable about the thought of a retired USAF general assuming the helm of NASA.
[…] Jeff Foust has more on the potential […]
“I am uncomfortable about the thought of a retired USAF general assuming the helm of NASA.”
Pete Worden is a former Air Force one-star and director of NASA Ames, do you have a problem with that? And Dick Truly, the former astronaut and NASA administrator during Bush 41, was a former Navy vice-admiral.
I am uncomfortable with the thought that retired military officers are somehow ineligible for positions in civil government agencies.
If this report is accurate (and comments above point out it may not be) then there are some points in the General’s bio that I think might have been important considerations for the President Elect (other than being BFFs). The General spent at least 3 + years working in USAF International Affairs, and was in the “Executive Program for General Officers of the Russian Federation and the United States” in 1999. Since Mr. Obama has stressed international cooperation, and NASA works closely with Russia, someone who has familiarity in this field is a plus from that viewpoint. And of course, having commanded the 39th Wing, he has managerial experience with a large, geographically dispursed organization. Finally, hasn’t there been some talk from the Obama camp of more closely coordinating DOD and NASA space activities? So why not pick a general officer then?
With those points in mind, this choice (if true) wouldn’t be so strange. I’m not saying he would be the best choice, just that it seems to make sense based on stated Obama administration goals.
Finally, hasn’t there been some talk from the Obama camp of more closely coordinating DOD and NASA space activities?
No, there hasn’t. Or if there has, such talk is nonsense.
Will this myth never die?
Perhaps not, but until I see something convincingly refuting the Bloomburg article, I’ll consider it more than a myth. If you have some good links countering the assertions, I’ll gladly correct my comment.
I’m going by the report earlier this month in Bloomberg. I’ve tried to comment with the link twice now but it won’t post. If you have some reports refuting the assertion made by the article, I’ll gladly amend my comment.
Newspace is about to bu Bye-Bye!
Finally, hasn’t there been some talk from the Obama camp of more closely coordinating DOD and NASA space activities?
I agree that this particular report of a few weeks ago seems to have been somewhat inflated. But there has been (even after the announcement of VSE) some serious talk about such cooperation in the last few years. The House Science hearing of March 2004 “NASA–DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE COOPERATION IN SPACE TRANSPORTATION” considered this in some detail, with Steidle, Dickman, Sega as witnesses. I think Jeff Foust had a SR article on this hearing. The 2006 Defense Authorization act had Senator Hutchison specifically asking for such cooperation in space transportation architecture, in which NASA and DOD would collaborate on research, development, and even procurement.
Not completely clear what happened to this wave of interest in DOD-NASA cooperation, but at least one recent Congress didn’t consider such talk “nonsense”. An Obama administration might not either.
If you have some reports refuting the assertion made by the article, I’ll gladly amend my comment.
I refuted it here. And Jeff linked to that refutation a few days ago. The Bloomberg story made no sense as written.
Comment duly amended.
[Reprint of my post at NASAWatch]
It’s well known that Gration was angling for a top job in the Department of Defense in the Obama Administration. During the campaign he had an opportunity to be involved in creating Obama’s space policy, but barely engaged due to lack of interest and quickly pivoted over to other things – leaving the job to 20-something policy staffer Carlos Monje instead.
If he’s appointed, the signal sent to the entire space community will be that NASA is nothing more than a consolation prize for the Presidents’ buddy who couldn’t get the job he wanted. Or, at best, maybe NASA is some kind of training wheels for Gration to prove his management abilities.
How soon until he has his eyes on some of the slots at DoD that will be opening up when Gates leaves (Secretary of the Air Force, for example)? Is he really going to be effective if his term is only one or two years? Is he going to have the respect of the NASA team given his apparent lack of interest in space science or exploration?
These are all questions that Obama’s team and space industry leaders (including members of congress) should be asking themselves.
In terms of key civil space picks, I am not impressed with either MG Gration or Mr. Noble. These gentlemen do not seem to have the background for the positions they are apparently being considered for. I do not want an engineer or scientist to run NASA, to be sure, but rather someone with significant management experience. Gration seems to have some executive experience, but not enough in my opinion. Being a pilot and/or an astronaut also does not necessarily impress me as a qualification to run NASA. I think I would be inclined to tap a CEO or COO with experience running a multi-billion dollar, high-technology company. Having said that, the vetting of said CEO/COO should be very thorough in light of recent corporate scandals.
Bah. Whatever the pick, I think times will be tough for NASA in any case. Concurrently, the economy will be the chief burden for existing and emerging space markets, and space procurement woes in light of redeployments/restructuring will continue for the DoD. It’s going to be a difficult time in terms of U.S. space activity for some years, I believe.
Good point, Space Exec.
[Reprint of my post at spaceref.com]
I think the General would be an outstanding nominee….. for some position he was qualified for. (Seriously).
But, on the surface, he appears to be less qualified to head an agency like NASA than I would be to head up the Air Force. (And I’m not qualified to head up the Air Force). NASA is in crisis; new visions and management skills are both needed. He clearly is a man of visions – for several, non-space related topics.
He sounds like an interesting guy I’d like to sit down and have a beer with and discuss The World. Just not the space world.
This is dismal news for the space business at best. And this comes from a guy who retired after 28 years with the AF (Active Duty, Tx ANG, and AF Reserve)!
Right now there are LOTS of decisions being made about what facilities to retain or retire, what programs to continue or terminate, etc etc etc. We need to make decisions now that affect the fundamentals of our space program (civilian and military, commercial and government) for decades.
Gen Gration may be the best administrative and budget guy ever but he will take months to learn the acronyms, people, facilities, etc. He will have to leave decision making to his managers – many of whom will also change over. So real decisions will be left to various Centers, various managers – each with their own agendas. So look for a lot of infighting followed by bloodletting in about a year – after a lot of water has gone under the bridge.
If our luck is really bad – the NASA job may turn out to be a parking lot for military folks waiting to move into the Puzzle Palace, and the NASA administrator may change again soon.
Folks,
We should be careful about leaping to conclusions before we have all the data.
I agree there are big unknowns about Gration. I look at Gration as a “high-risk, high-reward” type of appointment.
A Gration pick could be really good IF:
1) Gration has some vision for what NASA can do that is inspiring, and passion for bringing change to NASA to achieve that vision.
2) Gration knows his limits, and brings in a very capable & knowledgeable team with him that share the vision, and listens to them. Those people will know what needs to be changed, and how to do so.
THE KEY here is to pick a good team, and not focus too much on one person.
3) Gration focuses on the “outwards & upwards” job and the vision (e.g., relationship with the White House), and his team (who know all the detailed policies and technical issues) focuses on the inwards issues.
4) Gration focuses on managing his top management team, and ensuring that the strategic decisions address the Obama administration’s top priorities, and leaves the technical decisions to his top team.
As an example of this — if the WH says “all programs should be judged by their ability deliver benefits in science, economics and security”, Gration would be there to make sure these were the figures of merit that everything was judged by.
This is one way the choice could produce excellent results. I am convinced that a smart manager with a good core team of managers, who are the same page as him, can succeed.
However, there are many paths to failure, some mentioned above.
Again, a high-risk, high-reward appointment.
– Al
Al,
I tend to agree with you. There is a lot of extrapolation going on, with almost no data, which is usually a recipe for being substantially wrong.
I do think that it comes back to a question of whether Obama wants to do something with NASA or not.
To elaborate, many people (including Griffin) say that James Webb was the best NASA Administrator ever.
Then those same people go and whine for a NON-Webb sort of person.
Webb was a lawyer, who had a close personal relationship to the President, and who understood the political process. He also had a close team of people — effectively joined at the hop — who managed NASA’s internal operations and provided technical management.
– Al
“Politics is not rocket science, which is why rocket scientists do not understand politics.”
Oops. I meant effectively joined “at the hip”.
– Al
Al, I agree.
I noted late last night that this could be really, really good, or really really bad, for just that reason. This will be the closest administrator to the president since Webb. Whatever the policy is, it will be implemented. The issue is entirely whether the policy will be good, or bad.
If he was the guy that got things done for Hans Mark I doubt he will need “months to learn all the acronyms” as if that was important anyway. If he is crazy enough to believe that we might be able to live in a world without nuclear weapons, I think he is crazy like a fox. I have been hoping that NASA would be redirected toward the development of Space Based Solar Power, like Japan. The reasons would have direct benefit to the DOD battlefront, where diesel costs upwards of one hundred dollars a gallon and foot soldiers carry more than 50 lbs of non standard batteries on a daily basis. Nuclear weapons are a headache waiting for advances in directed energy weapons to make obsolete. Another good rationale for Mars colonization is the accidental nuclear war. Help us Obama Kenobi, Graton is our only hope!
“Bob: Pete Worden is a former Air Force one-star and director of NASA Ames, do you have a problem with that? And Dick Truly, the former astronaut and NASA administrator during Bush 41, was a former Navy vice-admiral.”
Bob, Pete Worden has a doctorate in Astronomy and has published over 150 papers in astrophysics while working on such diverse programs as DARPA and Space and Missile Systems for US Space Command. Worden has extensive experience in both space science and engineering. He would be well qualified to be director of Ames. Richard Truly was with NASA from 1965 through 1983 then returned to NASA in 1986 after Challenger disaster. He had a long history of serving NASA when he was named NASA administrator in1989. Both of these men had a NASA track record while serving in the military. Gration has no prior NASA record or scientific, engineering expertise in space. He served as a White House Fellow for a deputy NASA admin Hans Mark for one year which doesn’t mean squat. When articles have to preface his qualifications with this line:
“Gration’s lack of experience with the space program would not necessarily be a handicap, experts said.”
There is a serious problem. He has served his entire career in military USAF commands and has no direct experience working with a civilian agency like NASA. Do not make the mistake of comparing apples to oranges. Running a military command is vastly different than running a civilian government agency.
And please quit comparing Gration to James Webb. Yeah, they may not have had any experience in the Space field, but Webb was a long time Washington player with an extensive political portfolio which is a plus when dealing with Congress and the President. Gration doesn’t even come close to matching Webb’s stature or charisma for that matter.
NELLASELIM: And please quit comparing Gration to James Webb. Yeah, they may not have had any experience in the Space field, but Webb was a long time Washington player with an extensive political portfolio which is a plus when dealing with Congress and the President.
This is true. Gration does not have the same amount of political experience as Webb.
Unfortunately, in today’s environment NASA gets passed over by the real political pros. They are uniformly not interested, as NASA is not seen to be a top national priority like it was for President Kennedy. The Daschle’s, Rahm’s, and Clinton’s of the world want a prestige job. NASA does not make the prestige list for an experienced and connected political pro.
However, Gration has a lot more political experience and credentials than Griffin, Boldin, and many other names that have been mentioned.
Gration has a good personal relationship with the President-elect, which is critical, and of equivalent nature to Webb-Kennedy. He has worked on Obama’s political campaign for over a year. He has been a White House fellow. He has significant foreign policy experience, which gives you an education in politics. Many of his postings gave him experience in politics. And the job of USAF General can be quite political at times.
NELLASELIM: Gration doesn’t even come close to matching Webb’s stature or charisma for that matter.
It seems to me that you are going a little bit overboard here. Let us break down your assertion.
On “Stature” — Let’s assume this is true (although measuring stature is often in the eye of the beholder, and a 2-star general who has intensely campaigned for you for over a year has some real stature). As I mentioned, NASA is not going to get a major “stature” person. None of the other candidates for the job are major stature figures.
On “Charisma” — When did “charisma” become a criterion for the Administrator job , as opposed to “vision”, “leadership” and “innovator”? (I look at the list of previous Administrator’s and don’t see a lot of “charsima” there). How do you measure “charisma”? Have you met and worked with Gration, and if not, how do you know Webb’s charisma is greater than Gration’s?
I am not advocating for Gration. It is appropriate to be concerned and worried because there are some important things that we do not know. For this reason, we all should want to know a lot more about Gration. At the same time, we should keep an open mind, and not jump to conclusions, before we get the information.
FWIW,
– Al
[…] to Space Politics: “…One other development: the Washington Blade reports that David Noble will be the […]
[…] this week is appeared that former Air Force major general Jonathan Scott Gration would be nominated this week as NASA administr…. However, the week has come and gone, and although Mike Griffin had his farewell ceremony Friday at […]
so whats the latest on a new nasa adminstrator? and new rockets??
e.g. man rated arianna or delta v
thanks
jim
I have heard from a very good source in NASA that Charlie Bolden is in close running to be the next Administrator. I have also heard General Lyle and one other General Officer. I am putting my bets on Charlie though just based on his past and the fact he was asked to be Deputy before Fred Gregory took it due to the fact he was still on Active Duty with the US Marines.
John